12 Responses to Gay man makes heartfelt plea. Watch before you vote!

Excellent, articulate, speaker, and a remarkable, virtually unique, (I suspect) point of view.…Which I don’t get.
The vote is not primarily about surrogacy – it’s about Gays being able to get legally married or not. It won’t, in my opinion, deprive one single child of a mother and father. No, it won’t help a grandmother and her daughter (as he cites) bringing up the daughter’s child. Nor will it “help” regular, “straight” marriages, any more than a law about motorcycles might “help” car drivers.It’s not intended to.
In my opinion, the speaker is absolutely right to ask why Gays feel the compulsive need to get married in the first place. He clearly doesn’t. But other gays do, it appears.
So I suppose we must allow them to, provided the decision is a majority one.
…Then they can repent at leisure. Like a lot of “straight” people.

Would I vote “Yes,” if I lived in Ireland? Probably not. Certainly wouldn’t vote “No,” though.

From about the 30 second mark through to 1:10 — he makes a pretty good case that it was a bad thing that in the eighties homosexuality was outright illegal, and a matter for the police. And he provides moving testimony. But the Church in Ireland was set against decriminalisation.

He goes on to speak eloquently about civil partnerships. Which the Church in Ireland also opposed. So in 2015 — having adopted untenable positions in the past, now, when marriage is actually at issue there is a self-created credibility problem. And it’s one of many factors that make a loss likely this week.

I don’t suppose for one minute that anyone opposes love between people although I would think it reasonable to believe that most would consider the homosexual act to be objectively disordered. Even though a majority of citizens may still happen to oppose the redefinition of marriage (for this is, in actuality, what the government has done), the more important thing is that the very idea of ‘same-sex marriage’ is a metaphysical absurdity. What is at issue here is a matter of objective fact that it is the business of reason to discover what ‘marriage’ is, or whether religion is a good thing or not, rather than the law to stipulate.

The metaphysics underlying natural law theory that marriage is, not by human definition, but as an objective metaphysical fact determined by its final cause, inherently procreative, and thus inherently heterosexual.

Let’s stop for a moment and think about whether or not it’s a good idea for the state to proselytize or profess or encourage the homosexual agenda and issues.

In nature, homosexuality would be a dead-end. In natural law, it is objectively disordered.

For the sake of argument, let’s say that homosexual activity is widespread, tolerated and acceptable. It is being taught as ‘normal’ to children in state schools and eventually comes to pretty well dominate in preference among pubescent and adolescent children – particularly boys.

Bearing in mind society’s experience with older males already given over to perversion, and their desire for ever younger males and the (legal) lowering of the bar for such homosexual encounters – will that too now become ‘tolerated’ and ‘celebrated’? Finally, will all young boys be expected to know about homosexual acts ever earlier?

Homosexuals seem to be over-represented in the media and politics and can be cliquish and exclusive. Following the Wolfenden report, sexual acts between two adult males, with no other people present, were made legal in England and Wales in 1967. Since when, they have never stopped campaigning for further legitimacy, then, under the force of ‘Human Rights’ laws, tolerance, acceptance and acquiescence.

What about female homosexuality – lesbianism? Will the future men, who are given over to perversion, want to maintain any ‘competition’ for status and dignity? What is to be a girl’s fate in a nation dominated by homosexuals? Has anyone asked what may happen to the status of females of child-bearing age and their children? Will the time not come that because of her gender she also has no status? Will she become of less and less importance, except for babies and merely be regulated to be a baby birther like all other women?

To tolerate and support any re-directing of the male sexual preference will have devastating effects upon our children. This path of encouraging homosexuality as any kind of equality is insane. Men do not become better people for indulging in perversion. Rather they ‘lower’ the bar and become ever more barbaric. Is this the kind of future you would usher in for your children? One where you have absolutely everything to lose and nothing to gain? What kind of madness and delusion is this? The acceptance and encouragement of homosexual lifestyles is too destructive a force to be unleashed upon any peoples. There is only misery and suffering ahead for our offspring.

Once we abandon grounding morality in reason, taking on formal and final causes, immutable human nature, God, the soul, the natural law, the whole shooting match, you inevitably find the highest expression of human dignity in such things as abortion clinics, euthanasia, needle exchange programs and the ennoblement of sodomy – and much much worse.

The vote is not primarily about surrogacy – it’s about Gays being able to get legally married or not. It won’t, in my opinion, deprive one single child of a mother and father.

How will it not? The only way that homosexuals can have children is by someone else having them for them, which very often involves surrogacy. This essentially leads to children being treated as a commodity – something people have a ‘right’ to, rather than a gift – and does indeed result in the children in question being taken away from their natural parents (or at least one of their natural parents). Furthermore, of course this will deprive children of a mother and a father – by definition, homosexual couples include either two men or two women, so even if one of these is the natural parent of the child, the child will not be being raised by both its natural parents, and will not be raised with both masculine and feminine influences, which are essential for the healthy development of children.

Also, I don’t think the speaker’s point of view is that unique. Dolce and Gabbana said something very similar, and experienced the wrath of ‘tolerant liberal’ Elton John for doing so.

Yes, Michael – note I did carefully use the word “primary.” I can’t believe the surrogacy issue is anything but a small, side issue. Most gay couples don’t want kids, I strongly suspect. I don’t know, of course. Maybe surrogacy IS what it’s all about.
The main thing, or so it seems to me, is whether two men (or women) can go through a process known as “marriage,” or not. And, if they’re mad enough want to – well, bless them.
What a panto all this is becoming.

Yes Toad, but you also said ‘It won’t, in my opinion, deprive one single child of a mother and father’, which is clearly not the case. I did notice that you specified that it is not primarily about surrogacy, and I agree, but this is a very important issue contained within the debate as a whole, for the reasons given above, and the point is that if SSM legislation is passed, there will be cases where homosexual couples want children, and surrogacy will be used. Even if the numbers of this are small, they are not insignificant – all children have a right to be brought up by a mother and a father, no adults have a right to children.

Also, regardless of the numbers of incidents of this being taken up, there is the issue of the knock-on effect – it gives the impression children are things we can buy, just like any other commodity, and further cheapens our attitudes regarding the dignity of each human person. As the speaker mentions though, the activists pushing for this change don’t really care about children, or the long-term effects on society, at all – they just want to push the envelope further and further, so that anyone daring to criticise or question their lifestyle is silenced, and to subvert the traditional social order.

On the left,. we have the small but vociferous, lunatic fringe that believes that “Irish Gay Marriage,” is the finest thing since sliced lava bread. Maybe 5% of the population.

On the right, we have the small, but vociferous, lunatic fringe that believes that “Irish Gay Marriage,”is the most detestable thing since sliced lava bread. Maybe 5% of the population.

In the middle, we have maybe 90% of the population – consisting of dopey, mindless, dolts and gobshites* – (include Toad in here) – who don’t give a monkey’s flatulent anal expulsion either way, and are confident The Sky Will Not Fall – no matter which way the wretched vote goes.And they are right. (I reckon.)

Is that a legal right, a moral right or a basic, no-argument, no-holds-barred, right?
Does it mean that every child, whose parents are dead, (or separated) can sue – if they don’t have the regulation two parents – one male, one female?
No? Then what does it mean?
Do all children have a right</I. to three square meals a day? Yes? To a decent education? To be properly clothed and fed?
To have somewhere warm and dry to sleep, each night, like my dogs? Yes?Then why don’t they get them?
We’d have to ask God that. And, while we’re at it, better ask Him why children don’t all have suitable parents in the first place – or why millions of children have no parents at all, despite their “rights.” .
Would those kids be better off with a couple of gay “parents,” than in an orphanage with no parents at all, except nuns?
I’d say yes. I’d prefer it, if I were an Irish child.

As to the right of a child to this, I would say it is a basic right according to the natural order of things – something which is the normal situation, and which it is morally wrong to deprive a child of. The other instances you cite are divergences from this situation which, while tragic, are not really helpful in answering the particular question being examined here. Just because some children end up with terrible parents, or end up orphaned, this does not mean that in the everyday run of things we should remove them from their natural parents and place them in an environment not fully conducive to their development.

Basically, we reason as to what is best for a child from the normal state of affairs, not divergences from that. Any cases where a child is left without parents, or in a dysfunctional environment, is very sad, and it is important to remember that same-sex ‘marriage’ is not the only issue on the table here – we need to get actual marriage back in shape too. But just because it is not the only issue, it does not mean we can neglect to address it.

For God’s sake, Michael – what’s going on on this “thread”? Has everyone gone mad??

” Here’s an article which might help outline why children fare better with a mother and father:”

Nobody, Nobody, Nobody, is disputing that children fare better with a father and mother than they do without! Nobody disputes that kids with mums and dads are likely to do better than they would without them. Not even the maddest, gayest, looniest, gay couple imaginable, I suggest. The question is, do kids do better with two dads (or mums) than with none at all?
Does any gay couple say “We, two fathers, (or mothers) can bring up our children better</B. than any "straight" mother and father can?" Honestly?
They might conceivably (if they were barking mad) assert that they can bring up their kids just as well as a straight couple can, and we can all argue about that – but bring them up better? No. How? What would they have to do to make that evident?

Calm yourself Toad! I was just trying to give a bit of wider context to show why the cases you cited are not actually relevant to the main issue at hand. To put it bluntly though, there are plenty of heterosexual, married couples who are more than willing to adopt children in the difficult circumstances, so the question of whether or not children would do better being brought up by a homosexual couple than by noone at all is academic – this is a situation which is purely hypothetical, and need not arise.

The only reason such a situation is even being brought up is because some very testy activists are insisting on the fact that it doesn’t matter whether or not children have a mother and a father, and that homosexual couples can provide an environment just as conducive to healthy development across the board as heterosexual couples are able to. If you look back, I didn’t say anything about them bringing up children better than heterosexual couples.

So, to summarise, quite a few people are disputing that children need to be brought up by a mother and a father, and also that children orphaned or removed from a dysfunctional home (or born by surrogacy) should be placed with homosexual couples despite there being plenty of heterosexual couples ready to take them in and much evidence suggesting they would be better off with the latter. You’ll also remember I’m sure that several Catholic adoption agencies, who had for years aided such couples to adopt in the past, had to close down because they wouldn’t sign up to this ridiculous idea, which does indeed place the rights of adults over the best interests of the child.